Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
BlueScope Steel Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 202, Port Kembla, NSW 2505, AUSTRALIA
Centre for Simulation and Modelling of Particulate Systems, School of Materials Science and Engineering,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, AUSTRALIA
ABSTRACT
With significant economic drivers to reduce consumption
of expensive coking coal, Pulverized Coal Injection (PCI)
commenced at BlueScope Steel in 2002, at injection rates
ranging between 100 and 150 kg-coal/tonne of liquid iron.
The key limitation to injection rates is associated with the
reduction in packed bed permeability via additional char
load into the furnace. The coal is injected via a simple coaxial lance, consisting of an inner pipe (for coal and
carrier gas) and an outer annulus (for cooling gas to
protect the lance from the high furnace temperatures). The
cooling gas can be compressed air, natural gas or pure
oxygen. Depending on the choice of cooling gas, the
oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the system will change. In this
paper, the application of a validated three-dimensional
numerical model of the blowpipe/tuyere/raceway is
described. The model is used for various plant-specific
investigations of blast parameters such as oxygen
enrichment, blast temperature and atomic oxygen-tocarbon ratio. The model results show the sensitivity of
coal burnout to different operating parameters and confirm
that burnouts higher than 80% are difficult to obtain due
to the short residence times of the coal.
NOMENCLATURE
A Arrhenius rate constant
B Coal burnout
CD Gas-solid drag coefficient
dp Particle diameter
e Char particle void fraction
k1 Boundary layer diffusion (Gibb equation)
k2 Surface reaction rate (Gibb equation)
k3 Internal diffusion rate (Gibb equation)
ma Ash mass fraction
ma,0 Original ash mass fraction
MC Molecular weight of carbon
Mo2 Molecular weight of oxygen molecule
Nu Nusselt number
Pr Prandtl number
Re Reynolds number
Tc Activation temperature (K)
Tp Particle temperature (K)
p Particle emissivity
Molar ratio (Gibb equation)
Density
Stefan-Boltzmann constant
INTRODUCTION
Pulverised coal injection was introduced at BlueScope
Steels Port Kembla blast furnaces (BF) in 2002, with aim
injection rates in the range of 100-150 kg-coal/tonne of
liquid iron. Due to recent changes in supply coal pricing
structure, there is a clear economic advantage associated
with increasing PCI rates to replace coking coal. Overseas
experience, eg from European steelmakers such as Corus
IJmuiden and Arcelor Sidmar, suggest that coal injection
rates up to and in excess of 200 kg-coal/tonne of liquid
iron are sustainable.
Combustion of coal under blast furnace conditions differs
from the combustion phenomena experienced in coal fired
power stations because of the differences in air
temperature, air flow rate, oxygen enrichment and nozzle
geometry. Modelling of coal combustion under blast
furnace conditions is relatively well advanced (Ishii,
2000).
One of the key factors affecting the maximum PCI rate
attainable at the BF is the packed bed permeability a
more permeable bed is more able to cope with the
additional char load. In order to minimise char load, the
extent of coal combustion (burnout) within the inlet
nozzle (tuyere) and raceway must be optimised. This can
be achieved through improvements in a) lance design, eg
double eccentric lances and/or lance tip shape, b) injection
air (blast) parameters, eg oxygen enrichment, cooling gas
type, and c) coal type.
Recently, BlueScope Steel Research and University of
NSW jointly developed a three-dimensional numerical
model to describe the flow and combustion of pulverised
coal under BF conditions (Guo et al., 2005). The model
was based on the geometry of, and flow conditions used
in, BHP Billitons third generation combustion test rig,
located at its Newcastle Technology Centre (Mathieson et
al., 2003). The original version of the model was
developed using the commercial CFD package
CFX ver4.4. More recently, a new version of CFX, ver10
(ANSYS CFX, 2006), has been released with an improved
coal combustion sub-model within its solver architecture.
In addition, the previous version of the model was
relatively insensitive to atomic oxygen to carbon (O/C)
ratios. This has been addressed by introducing the partial
oxidation of char (carbon) to CO, as well as the
gasification reactions of char with CO2 and H2O.
Homogeneous gas phase oxidation reactions of CO and H2
are also introduced.
MODEL DESCRIPTION
Governing Equations for Gas Phase
Reaction
A [s-1]
Tc [K]
Low rate (k1)
3.7105
18000
High rate (k2)
1.461013
30189
Table 1: Coal devolatilisation reaction kinetics
Volatile Matter Composition
Particle Transport
CxHyO Cx-1Hy-2z + z H2 + CO
(1)
Gas Phase Combustion
k1
1V1 + (1 1 )Ch1
k2
2V2 + (1 2 )Ch2
H2O
(6)
CO2
(7)
Char Oxidation
(2)
k = A exp( Tc T p )
(5)
Devolatilisation
Coal
(4)
CO
CO2
C + O2
(8)
C + O2
(9)
(3)
C + O2 2( 1)CO + (2 )CO2
2
(10)
dmC
3 M C O2 , 1
=
( k1 + ( k 2 + k3 ) 1 ) 1
dt
1 e M O 2 C
(11)
SIMULATION CONDITIONS
Coal Properties
Char Gasification
C + CO2 2CO
(12)
C + H 2O CO + H 2
(13)
Coal 1 Coal 2
Moisture, % (ad)
2.3
0.9
Volatile matter, %(ad) 5.8
12.4
Ash, % (ad)
8.6
8.0
Fixed carbon, % (ad)
83.3 78.7
Gross specific energy, 33,350 32,975
kJ/kg (ad)
Q-factor
1.0
1.1
Table 3: Proximate analysis of coals
k = AcTp exp( Tc Tp )
(16)
Coal 3 Coal 4
1.2
3.4
20.0 32.6
9.7
9.3
69.1 54.8
32,050 31,150
1.1
Coal 5
5.6
39.1
2.7
52.6
30,470
1.45
1.35
(14)
100%
Reaction
Ac [m s-1 K-1]
Tc [K]
C- CO2 gasification 20230
39743
C-H2O gasification
606.9
32406
Table 2: Char gasification reaction kinetics
90%
Cumulative volume %
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
q r = pd p2 ( I T p4 )
(15)
10
Coal 1
Particle size, m
Coal 2
Coal 3
100
Coal 4
1000
Coal 5
Two different geometries were considered: the BHPBilliton coal combustion test rig and one of Port Kemblas
blast furnace tuyeres. Details of the test rig used to
generate the experimental data are described elsewhere
(Guo et al., 2005; Mathieson et al., 2003). The main
dimensions of the rig and the computational mesh are
shown in Fig. 2. This is the same mesh used in the study
of Guo et al. (2005).
Coal types;
RESULTS
Coal Model Validation
B = (1
a)
ma ,0
ma
) /(1 ma , 0 )
(17)
b)
Figure 3: Main dimensions of the BF raceway model
For both geometries, there are three different gas streams
entering the domain, namely, conveying gas (nitrogen),
cooling gas (either compressed air, oxygen or methane)
and hot blast. The flowrates for all three streams are based
on experimental and BF operating conditions.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Burnout, %
74
Oxygen cooling
72
70
Compressed
air
68
66
Natural gas
64
62
60
2.4
2.45
2.5
2.55
2.6
2.65
2.7
2.75
2.8
2.85
2.9
CONCLUSIONS
A numerical model has been developed and validated for
the investigation of coal combustion phenomena under
blast furnace operating conditions. It was found that:
Consistent with experimental data, the high Volatile
Matter (VM) coals achieve much higher burnouts
under simulated raceway conditions;
A 7% (absolute) improvement in coal burnout is
predicted for a lance cooled by compressed oxygen,
compared with a lance that is cooled with natural gas;
Increasing the blast temperature by 50C to 1250C
resulted in a 4% (absolute) increase in coal burnout;
The combination of very high oxygen enrichment and
high coal flowrates results in high coal burnouts; and
A reduction in the mean coal particle size from 45m
to 29m is predicted to increase burnout by 8%
(absolute).
Burnout, %
74
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr Harold Rogers and his
team at BHP-Billitons Newcastle Technology Centre for
the carefully carried out combustion experiments and
quality data provided.
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
1100
1120
1140
1160
1180
1200
1220
1240
1260
1280
1300
Blast temperature, C
REFERENCES
ISHII, K., (2000), Advanced Pulverised Coal Injection
Technology and Blast Furnace Operation, Elsevier
Science Ltd.
GUO, B., ZULLI, P., ROGERS, H., MATHIESON, J.
G. and YU, A., (2005), Three-dimensional Simulation of
Flow and Combustion for Pulverised Coal Injection, ISIJ
International, 45, 1272-1281.
MATHIESON, J. G., TRUELOVE, J. S. and ROGERS,
H., (2003), Toward an Understanding of Coal
Combustion in Blast Furnace Tuyere Injection, Int. Sym.
on Utilisation of Coal and Biomass, ISUCB-03
Newcastle, Australia.
ANSYS CFX, CFX10.0, (2006), on line document
(www.ansys.com/products/cfx.asp)
SCHILLER, L. and NAUMANN, A., (1933), Uber die
Grundlegenden
Berechnungen
bei
der
Schwerkraftaufbereitung, VDI Zeits, 77, 318.
UBHAYAKAR, S. J., STICKLER, D. B., von
ROSENBERG Jr., C. W. and GANNON, R. E., (1976),
Rapid Devolatilization of Pulverised Coal in Hot
Combustion Gases, 16th Symp. (Int.) Combust./The
Combustion Institute, 427.
GIBB, J., (1985), Combustion of Residual Char
Remaining after Devolatilization, Lecture, Mechanical
Engineering Dept, Imperial College, London.
HLA, S., HARRIS, D. and ROBERTS, D., (2005), A
Coal Conversion Model for Interpretation and Application
of Gasification Reactivity Data, Proc. Int. Conf. of Coal
Sci. and Tech. (ICCS&T), Ibaraki, Japan.
RANZ, W. and MARSHALL, W., (1952), Evaporation
from Drops: Part I, Chemical Engineering Progress, 48,
141.
ROGERS, H. (2006), BlueScope Steel Phase II Blast
Furnace PCI Combustion Test Program, Internal
BlueScope Steel Report.